Njordr
Sergeant
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 4:00 pm

Corps structure and composition

Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:57 pm

Hi all. While we have plenty of informations about how to assembly Divisions, I cannot recall a discussion about Corps.
Can anyone post his thoughts?

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1583
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:58 pm

First off, a Corps Commander under Grant or Lee has more Command Points than under other Army commanders. Optimally, I give each Corps stack a pontoon, engineer, HQ and a balloon element. Then it's an artillery Division and four infantry Divisions. Sometimes people use much smaller Corps to create a defensive line that will MTSG to mass forces.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

Njordr
Sergeant
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 4:00 pm

Wed Sep 09, 2015 3:12 pm

Gray Fox wrote:Optimally, I give each Corps stack a pontoon, engineer, HQ and a balloon element. Then it's an artillery Division and four infantry Divisions.


I understand the benefit of having those support units in the Corps stack, but how many time you need to achieve such a configuration?
The support units are quite expensive, draining the resources you need to build up your Divisions.

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1583
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Wed Sep 09, 2015 3:41 pm

"...but how many time you need to achieve such a configuration?"

That would be every single time.

Soldiers aren't magicians. If you want to win then don't pay for defeat. Throw together whatever you must in defense, but you pick the force you are going to use to attack. Anything that can be organized can be done.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

Rod Smart
Colonel
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:32 pm

Wed Sep 09, 2015 3:47 pm

Njordr wrote:I understand the benefit of having those support units in the Corps stack, but how many time you need to achieve such a configuration?
The support units are quite expensive, draining the resources you need to build up your Divisions.


you should deploy every single HQ unit you can.
You should put them in the largest stacks you have. Those are typically corps formations. Thus, every large corps should have an HQ unit.


Similarly:
You should have a pontoon unit in every large stack in the East. Those are typically corps formations. Thus, every large corps in the east should have a pontoon.

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1583
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Wed Sep 09, 2015 3:56 pm

Actually, a stack with both an engineer and pontoon will entrench faster than with just one or the other. Faster entrenchment means force protection. This works from the east coast to the west.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

Njordr
Sergeant
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 4:00 pm

Wed Sep 09, 2015 4:16 pm

When I asked for "how many time" I meant "how many time you need to fully build sucha anumber of divisions".
In all my games I usually deplete my manpool really quickly, trying to garrison adequately every single front.

Rod Smart
Colonel
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:32 pm

Wed Sep 09, 2015 4:26 pm

Njordr wrote:When I asked for "how many time" I meant "how many time you need to fully build sucha anumber of divisions".
In all my games I usually deplete my manpool really quickly, trying to garrison adequately every single front.



If you want to play with a wall of troops from Little Rock to Ft Monroe, never.

If you want to concentrate your troops into invincible hammer and anvil MTSG beasts, always.




Just depends on how you want to play.

Njordr
Sergeant
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 4:00 pm

Wed Sep 09, 2015 4:58 pm

Rod Smart wrote:If you want to play with a wall of troops from Little Rock to Ft Monroe, never.

If you want to concentrate your troops into invincible hammer and anvil MTSG beasts, always.




Just depends on how you want to play.


Well, I know that the first option is impossible, that Far West front has lesser importance than Eastern, and so on.

But having a look at various screenshots posted in other threads I feel my stacks are smaller (have a smaller combat power) than those depicted.

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1583
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Wed Sep 09, 2015 5:05 pm

I've seen in too many AAR's that people assemble these small Corps. The Corps are then grouped along a front of defensive positions like WWI. These are supposed to mutually support themselves with MTSG. The problem is that MTSG doesn't always work. When it does work, the marching Corps are not entrenched for the battle in the region they support. Several weak Corps still have to contend with one strong assault Corps.

I would instead propose that you entrench a series of single Divisions with artillery in stockades, forts or redoubts, i.e., strongpoints. This gives you the resources (Divisions) for a reserve, strong Corps. If the enemy moves between your strongpoints, then his line of communications (supply) will never be secure. This gives you the flexibility to seal off his retreat path with your strong Corps. He must now attack you at the place of your choosing or starve.

P.S. Njordr, I posted only minutes after your last post without reading it.

So you have exhausted your force pool but your Corps seem smaller to you than screenshots posted by others. Perhaps you should post what you use to form Corps, how many and what your scheme is for using them?
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

Return to “Civil War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests